On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:36PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > >So I'll ask the same question that Christoph asked me: If nobody is > > > >reporting problems on 3.0.x, why do this and risk regression and > > > >fallout that requires fixing? > > > > > > > >FWIW, what testing have you done? > > > > > > Do you mean? > > > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00002.html > > > > > > I read that message as a concern that your original Linux 3.0-stable > > > patch series contained some items that did not meet the -stable > > > criteria. > > > > I read it as "why change something that no-one is reporting bugs > > for?". > > I guess we could all stop putting words in his mouth and let him speak for > himself. Christoph (cc'd), would you please clarify your position? Well, both of the above applies. A lot of the patches are defintively above the normal -stable criteria. If we have a reall good reason we might be able to bend the criteria, but I'd really love to see justificaton for that, preferably in form of user reports of grave issues. > Stable folk (cc'd Greg), what is your disposition with regard to proposing > patches for -stable proactively? Do we really need to have a bug report from a > 3.0-stable user for every bug we propose for 3.0-stable? I don't think we'll need any report for things that are a) obvious lingering big problems and have b) non-invasive fixes occasionally just one of the criteria should be enough. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
